Apple, Give Us a "Freedom of Choice" Button

With the new iPhone 4 hitting stores this week, it seems like a good time to take a look at the impact Apple's business model has had on the stuff EFF cares about most – innovation and your digital rights and expectations.

But first, a little historical perspective. From our earliest days, EFF has been concerned about the ecosystem that exists around communications technologies. We used to refer to this work as our Open Platform Proposal, and we've spent the last 20 years fighting initiatives by governments and private companies that would have damaged the end-to-end interoperability of the Internet and interfered with innovation, free expression and the fundamental freedom to tinker.

The principle is simple: just as you get to choose whatever after-market modification you want to make to your car, whatever disk drive you want to add to your mainframe, and whatever third party add-on you want for your software, you should be able to choose the apps and hardware you want for your iPhone. You should be able to choose your network provider. And you should be able to leave the walled garden and continue to use your device after you've moved on.

This is about end-user choice, and Apple doesn't seem to believe you deserve any. Through its control over the iPhone's software and its mandatory approval process, Apple is pushing the idea that a manufacturer should be able to dictate how things can interoperate with a product at every layer – from the software, applications, and services that can be developed and sold, to the consumer's use of the device, to the other devices that can physically plug into it.

The consequences of this approach are all too clear. Consider these examples:

Apple censored two graphic novels, one based on Ulysses and the other on The Importance of Being Earnest, by blacking out portions of the art panels. The panels showed nudity (Ulysses) and men kissing (Earnest). Again, Apple asked the apps' developers to resubmit after Apple received bad publicity for the censorship.

These are exactly the kinds of moves that we generally trust customer choice to solve – if you could get your apps from other stores, then Apple's censorship and anti-competitive moves would be much less problematic. Apple claims it needs to build a walled garden to protect users. From where we’re sitting, however, the walled garden looks very much like an effort to control the user and re-set traditional expectations about what you can do with the products you buy.

As Jason Snell put it over at MacWorld, Apple should offer iPad and iPhone owners "an option that lets you install Apps from 'unknown sources.'” Think of it as a "freedom of choice" button, for those who elect to leave the "safety" of Apple's walled garden of pre-approved apps.

Apple's certainly not the only company trying to control your user experience. We're involved in a lawsuit right now where Facebook has sued a company for creating an app that enables end-users to log into their multiple social networking accounts and aggregate messages, friend lists, and other data. Microsoft's expulsion of users from Xbox Live for altering their consoles is another example. There is a troubling trend of companies cutting off their customers when they learn that the customers have tried to control, without company permission, some aspect of the hardware or software they purchased.

To quote our dear friend Cory Doctorow, "If someone takes something that belongs to you and puts a lock on it that you don't have a key for, that lock isn't in your best interests." It’s abundantly clear that Apple is no exception to this rule. If Apple and its fellow travelers truly care about protecting the user experience – in the long term as well as the short term – they should abandon the lock-down mentality and support your right to control your own devices. They should support the interoperability that has fostered consumer choice and the rapid growth of new technologies. They should give up the keys to the garden.

Related Updates

Washington, D.C.—The Electronic Frontier Foundation won petitions submitted to the Library of Congress that will make it easier for people to legally remove or repair software in the Amazon Echo, in cars, and in personal digital devices, but the library refused to issue the kind of broad, simple and robust...

There’s a lot of talk these days about “content moderation.” Policymakers, some public interest groups, and even some users are clamoring for intermediaries to do “more,” to make the Internet more “civil,” though there are wildly divergent views on what that “more” should be. Others vigorously oppose such moderation, arguing...

Have you ever wanted to talk with the Electronic Frontier Foundation about the risks of talking in public about security issues, especially in connected Internet of Things devices? Tomorrow, you'll get your chance. Information security has never been more important: now that everything from a car to a...

Congress has never made a law saying, "Corporations should get to decide who gets to publish truthful information about defects in their products,"— and the First Amendment wouldn't allow such a law — but that hasn't stopped corporations from conjuring one out of thin air, and then defending it as...

Update August 10, 2018: Google has confirmed that it has removed Topple Track from its Trusted Copyright Removal Program membership due to a pattern of problematic notices.Symphonic Distribution (which runs Topple Track) contacted EFF to apologize for the improper takedown notices. It said that “bugs within the system that...

With Gmail’s new designrolled out to more and more users, many have had a chance to try out its new “Confidential Mode.” While many of its features sound promising, what “Confidential Mode” provides isn’t confidentiality. At best, the new mode might create expectations...

Every three years, the US Copyright Office undertakes an odd ritual: they allow members of the public to come before their officials and ask for the right to use their own property in ways that have nothing to do with copyright law. It's a strange-but-true feature of American life.

When the Russian and Saudi teams squared off in a World Cup match on June 14, many fans were treated to an enthralling football match; but for a minority of fans with a visual disability, the match was more confusing than exciting. You see, the Russian team wears red jerseys...

Using word searches to find infringement is a bad way to go about things. It is likely why Volkswagen filed three takedown requests for art of beetles. Not Beetles with four wheels and headlights. Beetles with six legs and hard, shiny carapaces. For the record, Volkswagen holds no rights to...

Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA 1201) makes it illegal to get around any sort of lock that controls access to copyrighted material. Getting exemptions to that prohibitions is a long, complicated process that often results in long, complicated exemptions that are difficult to use. As part...